Dehumanization of the Left

Justin Richardson

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2019
4,365
4,596
1,970
“When a woman is pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her. It is part of her body,” Quinn said. “This is about a woman having full agency and control of her body…and making decisions about what is part of her body with medical professionals.” - New York City Democratic politician Christine Quinn



So, choices should be made by a 13-year old "woman"? Only because it is her body? So, the baby that is supposedly "not human" doesn't get to decide whether she/he will be able to live?

I seriously wonder if either Christine Quinn or/and Chris Cumo ever wonder themselves: "Hell, that could have been me?"

Probably never.
 
What makes you think only leftist have abortions?
What makes you think he said that?

I sure don't see where he said that, so why are you putting words in his mouth? Is it because you are too stupid to comprehend the English language or too dishonest to actually discuss the subject matter?
 
What makes you think he said that?

I sure don't see where he said that, so why are you putting words in his mouth? Is it because you are too stupid to comprehend the English language or too dishonest to actually discuss the subject matter?

It's ok...it's expected of the left...to downplay the discussion.
They just rather run their mouths without having any thinking in the matter. Or have any rational conversation.
 
Many "leftist" women turn conservative after struggling with the emotional turmoil after their abortion they were taught to believe was a thing of beauty turned out to be a nightmare.

I believe the woman who was portrayed in the movie "Unplanned" was a leftist. Or at least, she wasn't Pro-life. Until she went through an abortion herself. (I forget her name.)

I know that Gonell or Godnell was an abortion doctor that didn't care for human life at all. He all said it was all for Science. (not his exact quote)
 
“When a woman is pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her. It is part of her body,” Quinn said. “This is about a woman having full agency and control of her body…and making decisions about what is part of her body with medical professionals.” - New York City Democratic politician Christine Quinn



So, choices should be made by a 13-year old "woman"? Only because it is her body? So, the baby that is supposedly "not human" doesn't get to decide whether she/he will be able to live?

I seriously wonder if either Christine Quinn or/and Chris Cumo ever wonder themselves: "Hell, that could have been me?"

Probably never.




Although infanticide is a pillar of Democrat/Liberal belief these days, not a single Democrat voter is rushing to support this insane view from Democrat Quinn.

Once again we find that Democrat voters are unable to explain or defend the doctrines that they vote for.



The unborn is NOT a part of the woman's body any more than if she were transfusing blood to a complete stranger.
 
“When a woman is pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her. It is part of her body,” Quinn said. “This is about a woman having full agency and control of her body…and making decisions about what is part of her body with medical professionals.” - New York City Democratic politician Christine Quinn



So, choices should be made by a 13-year old "woman"? Only because it is her body? So, the baby that is supposedly "not human" doesn't get to decide whether she/he will be able to live?

I seriously wonder if either Christine Quinn or/and Chris Cumo ever wonder themselves: "Hell, that could have been me?"

Probably never.




Although infanticide is a pillar of Democrat/Liberal belief these days, not a single Democrat voter is rushing to support this insane view from Democrat Quinn.

Once again we find that Democrat voters are unable to explain or defend the doctrines that they vote for.



The unborn is NOT a part of the woman's body any more than if she were transfusing blood to a complete stranger.

Infanticide is not the cornerstone of the democrats, abortion is one of their plank items yet it is not the cornerstone .
 
“When a woman is pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her. It is part of her body,” Quinn said. “This is about a woman having full agency and control of her body…and making decisions about what is part of her body with medical professionals.” - New York City Democratic politician Christine Quinn



So, choices should be made by a 13-year old "woman"? Only because it is her body? So, the baby that is supposedly "not human" doesn't get to decide whether she/he will be able to live?

I seriously wonder if either Christine Quinn or/and Chris Cumo ever wonder themselves: "Hell, that could have been me?"

Probably never.



None of those three are human. They should all be “aborted”.
 
Infanticide is not the cornerstone of the democrats, abortion is one of their plank items yet it is not the cornerstone .

Sure it is the cornerstone of the Democrats. You don't think they follow the logic or ideology of " Infanticide is the act of deliberately causing the death of a very young child (under 1 year old)." ?

You don't believe that it has been one of their main platforms they run on (everytime there is an Abortion debate) that it is routinely used as a way to control and regulate the population. As such, it particularly affected female children, since having fewer women meant having a lower rate of reproduction (fewer children)?
 
What makes you think he said that?

I sure don't see where he said that, so why are you putting words in his mouth? Is it because you are too stupid to comprehend the English language or too dishonest to actually discuss the subject matter?

Go read it again...

I seriously wonder if either Christine Quinn or/and Chris Cumo ever wonder themselves: "Hell, that could have been me?"

Probably never.

Although infanticide is a pillar of Democrat/Liberal belief these days, not a single Democrat voter is rushing to support this insane view from Democrat Quinn.

Once again we find that Democrat voters are unable to explain or defend the doctrines that they vote for.

The unborn is NOT a part of the woman's body any more than if she were transfusing blood to a complete stranger.

So if it's not a part of her body, why do you have a problem with her expelling it? "Fly, be free, little fetus!"

As a practical matter, you can't give a fetus more rights than the woman it is inside... but that's really what you nutters advocate for.
 
Here's the underlying problem with all the anti-choice nutters.

They want an ideal they can't enforce.

Ugly little truth. The reason why the Justices (including 5 Republicans) struck down all the abortion laws wasn't because they thought it would be cool to have abortions.

It was that abortions were going on, the laws were being completely ignored and not enforced, and the lack of standards and regulations resulted in a lot of shady operators providing bad care.

The mistake the justices made was that they thought Roe would be like Griswald v. Connecticut or Lawrence v. Texas. Getting rid of a stupid law no one was obeying, but no one had the guts to repeal.

What they failed to realize was that when the Evangelicals needed an issue to keep asses in pews, they locked onto abortion after segregation wasn't selling anymore.

The "Pro-LIfe" (Not really) Movement is like a dog chasing a car. They have no idea what to do if they actually caught the car.
 
What makes you think he said that?

I sure don't see where he said that, so why are you putting words in his mouth? Is it because you are too stupid to comprehend the English language or too dishonest to actually discuss the subject matter?

Go read it again...

I seriously wonder if either Christine Quinn or/and Chris Cumo ever wonder themselves: "Hell, that could have been me?"

Probably never.

Although infanticide is a pillar of Democrat/Liberal belief these days, not a single Democrat voter is rushing to support this insane view from Democrat Quinn.

Once again we find that Democrat voters are unable to explain or defend the doctrines that they vote for.

The unborn is NOT a part of the woman's body any more than if she were transfusing blood to a complete stranger.

So if it's not a part of her body, why do you have a problem with her expelling it? "Fly, be free, little fetus!"

As a practical matter, you can't give a fetus more rights than the woman it is inside... but that's really what you nutters advocate for.



Stop tap-dancing.

Is it part of her body, or is the unborn a separate and unique human being?
 
What makes you think he said that?

I sure don't see where he said that, so why are you putting words in his mouth? Is it because you are too stupid to comprehend the English language or too dishonest to actually discuss the subject matter?

Go read it again...

I seriously wonder if either Christine Quinn or/and Chris Cumo ever wonder themselves: "Hell, that could have been me?"

Probably never.

Although infanticide is a pillar of Democrat/Liberal belief these days, not a single Democrat voter is rushing to support this insane view from Democrat Quinn.

Once again we find that Democrat voters are unable to explain or defend the doctrines that they vote for.

The unborn is NOT a part of the woman's body any more than if she were transfusing blood to a complete stranger.

So if it's not a part of her body, why do you have a problem with her expelling it? "Fly, be free, little fetus!"

As a practical matter, you can't give a fetus more rights than the woman it is inside... but that's really what you nutters advocate for.



Stop tap-dancing.

Is it part of her body, or is the unborn a separate and unique human being?

From the perspective of society, it is part of her body. There's no other way to parse it that doesn't violate fundamental human liberty.
 
Here's the underlying problem with all the anti-choice nutters.

They want an ideal they can't enforce.

Ugly little truth. The reason why the Justices (including 5 Republicans) struck down all the abortion laws wasn't because they thought it would be cool to have abortions.

It was that abortions were going on, the laws were being completely ignored and not enforced, and the lack of standards and regulations resulted in a lot of shady operators providing bad care.

The mistake the justices made was that they thought Roe would be like Griswald v. Connecticut or Lawrence v. Texas. Getting rid of a stupid law no one was obeying, but no one had the guts to repeal.

What they failed to realize was that when the Evangelicals needed an issue to keep asses in pews, they locked onto abortion after segregation wasn't selling anymore.

The "Pro-LIfe" (Not really) Movement is like a dog chasing a car. They have no idea what to do if they actually caught the car.




Good example of an inhuman Lefttard . Talks about "standards" yet opposes when "standards" are applied to abortion. This is one of Jose's pet issues. This dude Jose B holds Kermet Gosnell in high regard. If we read all your posts on the topic of abortion (among others) you can see how the left can be dehumanized. The DNC is the party of have nots, and never hads.


Hey joe, if the car was caught not much would happen except tha an old McDonalds couldn't be used an an abortion clinic anymore.
 
What makes you think he said that?

I sure don't see where he said that, so why are you putting words in his mouth? Is it because you are too stupid to comprehend the English language or too dishonest to actually discuss the subject matter?

Go read it again...

I seriously wonder if either Christine Quinn or/and Chris Cumo ever wonder themselves: "Hell, that could have been me?"

Probably never.

Although infanticide is a pillar of Democrat/Liberal belief these days, not a single Democrat voter is rushing to support this insane view from Democrat Quinn.

Once again we find that Democrat voters are unable to explain or defend the doctrines that they vote for.

The unborn is NOT a part of the woman's body any more than if she were transfusing blood to a complete stranger.

So if it's not a part of her body, why do you have a problem with her expelling it? "Fly, be free, little fetus!"

As a practical matter, you can't give a fetus more rights than the woman it is inside... but that's really what you nutters advocate for.



Stop tap-dancing.

Is it part of her body, or is the unborn a separate and unique human being?

From the perspective of society, it is part of her body. There's no other way to parse it that doesn't violate fundamental human liberty.



Please, don't be stupid.


The question is one of biology.


Here's your lesson:

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

  1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
  2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
  3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
  4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
  5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
  6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
  7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
  8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
  9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"
Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

  1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:
As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

11. No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

  1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
  2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
  3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.
Part of the Mother’s Body?


Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?




Don't make that mistake again.
 

Forum List

Back
Top